Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Power shift continues

Sunday, Feb. 20, 2000 | 10:03 a.m.

Mike O'Callaghan is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor.

No matter how you cut it, when all is said and done about legislative reapportionment by the 2001 Nevada Legislature, northern and rural areas will have less power. When the 2000 Census is completed, almost 69 percent of the state's population will be in Clark County. This is a jump from the almost 62 percent of the state's population reflected in the 1990 Census.

Very simply, the 2003 Legislature can have the same number of legislators it has today and therefore not add any more expenses. This action, leaving the Senate at 21 members and the Assembly at 42, would have Clark gain three seats in the lower House and 1.5 in the Senate. The half seat would probably be shared with a rural county such as the southern part of Nye.

By not adding or subtracting any seats, the power shift would require the remainder of Nevada to lose three Assembly seats and 1.5 seats in the Senate. It's not what rural or northern legislators want to hear because those seats are now being warmed by them.

The Legislative Counsel Bureau figures that every legislator costs about $62,000 each session. Watch the people who pinch pennies when funding worthy projects fight to increase the number of legislators, no matter what the cost. In addition to the $62,000 per legislator each session, there will also be new offices and eventually maybe even some building expansion. The mere suggestion of saving money by reducing the numbers of assemblymen from 42 to 38 and Senate members from 21 to 19 drives the northern legislators up the wall. This arrangement would not only save money it would meet reapportionment demands and leave Clark County with the same number of legislators it has today. But that would be too simple of a solution for those who might lose their seats.

Watch for an attempt to be made for going to the constitutional limit by increasing the number of assemblymen from 42 to 50 and Senate members from 21 to 25. This way all of our tax money spenders will be happy. The problem is, according to Sun writer Cy Ryan, it could cost taxpayers almost an additional $1 million every two years plus an initial outlay of $850,000 to renovate the legislative building to fit in the then-bloated 2003 Legislature.

It would be foolish to bet the 2001 Legislature will meet reapportionment demands by eliminating some seats and saving money. On the other hand, only those who were foolish enough to vote themselves a 300 percent retirement increase in 1989 would even consider booming up the numbers to constitutional limits and a ton of tax money. So look for them to dawdle around and do everything they can to protect their own seats and those of their friends.

No matter what the final decision, the legislative power of Clark County will increase and all the remainder of Nevada will lose seats in Carson City. They can juggle it all they want, but the rapid population growth is in Clark County and won't go away. The message to the 2001 Legislature from Clark County is like the television advertisement where the repairman warns "pay me now or pay me later." It should be done now in the least painful and least expensive way possible.

Why some northern legislators are even talking about a special session to handle reapportionment is beyond me. When the census figures become available they should be turned over to outside demographers skilled in reapportionment. They can then come back during the regular session with several alternative schemes for the legislators to evaluate. All of this can be done while other legislative business is being conducted. Included in the work farmed out should also be the redistricting of Nevada for a new seat in the House of Representatives. This facet should not be controversial at all.

Nevadans who love and understand the whole state realize that the necessary reapportionment of the Legislature can be painful for some people. When first coming to Nevada each county was allowed only one senator. Clark and little Storey County had the same power in the state Senate. Yet the entire state survived and flourished as it will after reapportionment is completed next year.

In 1981, Jack McCloskey, then publisher and still columnist of the Mineral County Independent newspaper, commented about a plan for the addition of a new Nevada seat in Congress.

"And the governor fears this plan would weaken the influence of rural counties. For the governor's information, the 'influence' of the cow counties was weakened, diluted, and all but eliminated years ago by reapportionment. ..."

Twenty years later the loss of power continues.